Expelled

[leo-rcc]

Wauw, so much for monotheistic religion then.

Seriously? I don't see a conflict there. The Bible is pretty clear that there are many 'gods' and 'lords' but to us (the believer) there is only one God above all.

There are indeed many Christians who would disagree, but hey, if thats what you believe I'm fine with that, its your standard after all.

Great, now all I need is the why do you think it has merit part of the question.

Why do I think it has merit or why does it have merit to me?

Why would something that has merit to you not have merit to others?

To me it (God and true Christianity) is important because it tells us about creation and the creator. What, simply, is going on. I think it is important to be presented to everyone because of that - so that each person can be educated and make an informed decision regarding the subject. This is important to the skeptic and the believer alike.

Okay I with you so far, so what does it tell you about the creation and the creator? What IS going on according to your interpretation?

Anyway: What does God/Jesus/Baal/FSM/Buddha/Ganesh care who you sleep with or how? That sounds even more stupid to me.

There was a purpose for creation which the creator set in place and homosexuality is counter productive to that purpose and therefore detestable to the creator, Jehovah God.

The question from your perspective, though, isn't really what God cares about my sexuality because I have a choice. To you and most skeptics it is a question of cultural tolerance. Lets say that someone had a sexual attraction to animals or vegetables. Culturally that isn't as acceptable as homosexuality is now.

Sure, but of you imply that I think it would be immoral that a guy sticks his penis in a watermelon or a girl gets off on a cucumber your wrong, I'm fine with that, whatever floats their boat.

When it comes to animals I do have a problem with that and that is not so much the act, as the fact that there is no consent from both sides. And if there is, it is not verifiable. Furthermore there is the risk of the animal getting hurt in the process. Morality about the act doesn't come into question to me here.

Joseph was probably about 32 years old when he married Mary who was probably 14 - 16 years old. Culturally that was the norm but now it isn't. So your tolerance regarding sexual morality is no less limited than mine. It depends upon a fixed morality. Traditional and cultural.

Again you assume that I perceive something like this as immoral. As a matter of fact I don't object on grounds of morality as opposed to grounds of health. 16 is okay in my book, but sex and pregnancy at 14 carries the heightened risk of health issues. Specially in those days.

I thank you not to presume what I hold as moral or not. When in doubt, ask me. If anything I am very upfront about these things.

[Edwardo Piet]

We can talk about the movie - as you American persons call it - if you like, but typically I find the Creation / Evolution as well as Trinitarian discussion to be a total waste of time.

I haven't seen the film but I've heard of the name. Whats it about? I think I've heard its pro-religion, is it?
So is it like the opposite to the critically acclaimed film 'The God Who Wasn't There' or something? I'll check wikipedia sometime for a bit of info and check the website. But what do YOU think expelled is about?

[Eilonnwy]

Being a learned behavior doesn't imply that one has a choice. The traditional and cultural aspects of early development are similar - vague and subtle influences we may not be aware of forming who we are. The issue of choice regarding homosexuality isn't really relevant, though. Whether or not I chose homosexuality as a sexual preference (choice in ones sexuality is an idiotic notion anyway - nobody chooses their sexuality) is no more of your business than yours is mine, now is it.

Why should you judge me and my beliefs and choices I have made regarding sexuality whatever they may be? I don't yours.

I don't suppress my sexuality, that would be impossible and deceptive. I can however, control my actions.

Slavery is an issue we can discuss in full detail later, if you like, but suffice it to say that the Bible was much more humane about slavery than the current political entities by far. Most atheists are political much the same as the faithful are religious. I don't want slaves, but acknowledge that in the past every culture that I can think of did at one time.

---

It does imply choice because it ignores the fact that it is has been proven to be a genetic trait and nothing to do with social behaviour. Straight people raise gay children just as gay children raise straight children. Saying it's a learned behaviour feeds into the idiotic reasoning that Christian's give for Gays not to have civil rights and to not be able to adopt. I take huge offense to your understanding of homosexuality because it's wrong. It's not opinion. Homosexuality is genetic as your hair colour. You don't learn to have brown hair.

I don't care if you choose not to engage in sexual relationships. That's not what I'm taking issue with. What I take issue with is the reason's why you chose it because frankly it's a common misunderstanding that feeds into the prejudice against homosexuals and bisexuals. As a bisexual I currently do not engage in heterosexual or homosexual activities, but that's because there are other things in my life more important and I personally do not care for casual sex because of the risks and the fact that it just simply doesn't appeal to me. Not because I think there's anything wrong with me having sex with a man or woman, but because I would prefer to engage in it with someone I deeply care about it and I currently don't have time or need for a relationship.

I'm not judging you, I'm taking issue with your beliefs because you've put them here to be scrutinized and are based on a book written thousands of years to a moral culture that does not exist anymore. Our morality comes from society, not from the Bible. If the bible is your moral guide then you must think slaves are okay, that women are half the value of men, that it's okay to kill someone for non-belief. There is no leeway in these beliefs if your morality comes from a book (of which the authorship is highly questionable)

As for slavery, The Bible not only supports slavery, it tells you how to drive a spike through their ear to mark them. That's not humane. Also Jesus advocates slavery as well, so don't try and say the NT fixes that.

When the US fought the civil war slave owners used the bible as defense for their right to own slaves but it was the secular morality that brought slavery to an end in this country.

---

We can talk about the movie - as you American persons call it - if you like, but typically I find the Creation / Evolution as well as Trinitarian discussion to be a total waste of time.

I haven't seen the film but I've heard of the name. Whats it about? I think I've heard its pro-religion, is it?
So is it like the opposite to the critically acclaimed film 'The God Who Wasn't There' or something? I'll check wikipedia sometime for a bit of info and check the website. But what do YOU think expelled is about?

I haven't seen it yet but both I've heard about it from atheist shows. It essentially attempts to promote creationism as a valid scientific theory but what it actually does is say evolution leads to atheism, which leads to nazism, which leads to the holocaust.

I've actually recently downloaded the film to see how bad it is but have not had time to watch it. I wouldn't pay money for it.

[leo-rcc]

We can talk about the movie - as you American persons call it - if you like, but typically I find the Creation / Evolution as well as Trinitarian discussion to be a total waste of time.

I haven't seen the film but I've heard of the name. Whats it about? I think I've heard its pro-religion, is it?
So is it like the opposite to the critically acclaimed film 'The God Who Wasn't There' or something? I'll check wikipedia sometime for a bit of info and check the website. But what do YOU think expelled is about?

I haven't seen it yet but both I've heard about it from atheist shows. It essentially attempts to promote creationism as a valid scientific theory but what it actually does is say evolution leads to atheism, which leads to nazism, which leads to the holocaust.

I've actually recently downloaded the film to see how bad it is but have not had time to watch it. I wouldn't pay money for it.

Please do watch it, I thought it was so bad it almost became funny again. There is a very nice 3D animation in there though.

Basically it's the old "evolution is wrong so therefore creationism or 'intelligent design' is right" chestnut, and then the warning that the evil scientists don't want the truth to be known so creationism is 'Expelled' from science. And of course atheism is wrong, it leads to bad stuff like fascism and nazism and mass murders.

[Edwardo Piet]

Being a learned behavior doesn't imply that one has a choice. The traditional and cultural aspects of early development are similar - vague and subtle influences we may not be aware of forming who we are. The issue of choice regarding homosexuality isn't really relevant, though. Whether or not I chose homosexuality as a sexual preference (choice in ones sexuality is an idiotic notion anyway - nobody chooses their sexuality) is no more of your business than yours is mine, now is it.

Why should you judge me and my beliefs and choices I have made regarding sexuality whatever they may be? I don't yours.

I don't suppress my sexuality, that would be impossible and deceptive. I can however, control my actions.

Slavery is an issue we can discuss in full detail later, if you like, but suffice it to say that the Bible was much more humane about slavery than the current political entities by far. Most atheists are political much the same as the faithful are religious. I don't want slaves, but acknowledge that in the past every culture that I can think of did at one time.

---

It does imply choice because it ignores the fact that it is has been proven to be a genetic trait and nothing to do with social behaviour. Straight people raise gay children just as gay children raise straight children. Saying it's a learned behaviour feeds into the idiotic reasoning that Christian's give for Gays not to have civil rights and to not be able to adopt. I take huge offense to your understanding of homosexuality because it's wrong. It's not opinion. Homosexuality is genetic as your hair colour. You don't learn to have brown hair.

I don't care if you choose not to engage in sexual relationships. That's not what I'm taking issue with. What I take issue with is the reason's why you chose it because frankly it's a common misunderstanding that feeds into the prejudice against homosexuals and bisexuals. As a bisexual I currently do not engage in heterosexual or homosexual activities, but that's because there are other things in my life more important and I personally do not care for casual sex because of the risks and the fact that it just simply doesn't appeal to me. Not because I think there's anything wrong with me having sex with a man or woman, but because I would prefer to engage in it with someone I deeply care about it and I currently don't have time or need for a relationship.

I'm not judging you, I'm taking issue with your beliefs because you've put them here to be scrutinized and are based on a book written thousands of years to a moral culture that does not exist anymore. Our morality comes from society, not from the Bible. If the bible is your moral guide then you must think slaves are okay, that women are half the value of men, that it's okay to kill someone for non-belief. There is no leeway in these beliefs if your morality comes from a book (of which the authorship is highly questionable)

As for slavery, The Bible not only supports slavery, it tells you how to drive a spike through their ear to mark them. That's not humane. Also Jesus advocates slavery as well, so don't try and say the NT fixes that.

When the US fought the civil war slave owners used the bible as defense for their right to own slaves but it was the secular morality that brought slavery to an end in this country.

---

We can talk about the movie - as you American persons call it - if you like, but typically I find the Creation / Evolution as well as Trinitarian discussion to be a total waste of time.

I haven't seen the film but I've heard of the name. Whats it about? I think I've heard its pro-religion, is it?
So is it like the opposite to the critically acclaimed film 'The God Who Wasn't There' or something? I'll check wikipedia sometime for a bit of info and check the website. But what do YOU think expelled is about?

I haven't seen it yet but both I've heard about it from atheist shows. It essentially attempts to promote creationism as a valid scientific theory but what it actually does is say evolution leads to atheism, which leads to nazism, which leads to the holocaust.

I've actually recently downloaded the film to see how bad it is but have not had time to watch it. I wouldn't pay money for it.

I checked on wikipedia and I noticed and now remember that it is called Expelled:No intelligence allowed. It promotes intelligent design and is suggesting perhaps that a big part of the scientific community is in denial of their "intelligence" or something vaguely similar atleast.Which is actually not intellgient, its just perhaps more intelligent than creationism because its belief system is not quite as absurd. Its still full of shit. Like George Carlin said and I paraphrase 'some people you'll be talking to them and after about a minute you'll think "this guy is f*cking STUPID!", and then there's these other people who after about a minute you'll think "Well he's fairly intelligent...
Ah, he's full of shit!!"[.....]'

[Daystar]

There are indeed many Christians who would disagree, but hey, if thats what you believe I'm fine with that, its your standard after all.

Most of Christendom disagrees with most of what I believe because of the removal of pagan influence necessary for my interpretation of scripture and knowledge of Christian history.

Why would something that has merit to you not have merit to others?

On an Atheist board you ask me this? The Bible, which is the word of Jehovah God and the supposed basis for Christianity, has very little merit to the Atheist and not much more to the pagan influenced Xian.

Okay I with you so far, so what does it tell you about the creation and the creator? What IS going on according to your interpretation?

Briefly - we were created to live forever on paradise earth in perfection, without sickness, ageing, natural disaster, destruction or death - but we rejected Jehovah God's guidance and protection. Sin. There was a question raised before mankind and spirit creatures by Satan's deception. Can mankind enjoy creation without the Creator's protection? So far it isn't looking good. Sin equals death, Jesus took away sin. When man has all but destroyed the planet and himself Jehovah will step in and say time is up. Those who wish to follow the rules will live forever and those who don't will have everlasting destruction. Those who have died without having the opportunity for an informed position will be resurrected and given that opportunity. Satan, death, sin will be destroyed.

Sure, but of you imply that I think it would be immoral that a guy sticks his penis in a watermelon or a girl gets off on a cucumber your wrong, I'm fine with that, whatever floats their boat.

When it comes to animals I do have a problem with that and that is not so much the act, as the fact that there is no consent from both sides. And if there is, it is not verifiable. Furthermore there is the risk of the animal getting hurt in the process. Morality about the act doesn't come into question to me here.

Well - immorality isn't really the issue, I'm just pointing out that there are moral variations through the stream of time. Morality depends upon the time and place you are in, as well as the individual perception. Morality isn't the issue as such.

Again you assume that I perceive something like this as immoral. As a matter of fact I don't object on grounds of morality as opposed to grounds of health. 16 is okay in my book, but sex and pregnancy at 14 carries the heightened risk of health issues. Specially in those days.

I thank you not to presume what I hold as moral or not. When in doubt, ask me. If anything I am very upfront about these things.

I apologize. It wasn't my intention to presume to know your moral position; I was stating observations generally. Most militant skeptics think of the Christian as being a moral police for the globe, which isn't entirely without reason. It was my intention to compare the morality of them, as well as the average atheist as both being two sides of the same coin. Morality is subjective.

---

I haven't seen the film but I've heard of the name. Whats it about? I think I've heard its pro-religion, is it?
So is it like the opposite to the critically acclaimed film 'The God Who Wasn't There' or something? I'll check wikipedia sometime for a bit of info and check the website. But what do YOU think expelled is about?

The documentary style of the film leaves a great deal to be desired, and wafts off into areas that were not very well thought out or warranted, but it did present the science perspective rather than the religious.

To me it was about religious warring. A demonstration of how the 'science' minded are trying to squeeze out any opposition or questioning of the theory of evolution. It was actually documenting several respected scientist who had been Expelled for simply daring to mention ID in an open minded way.

To me it was a confirmation of the zealous, religious, xenophobic nature of theoretical 'science.' Desperation.

---

It does imply choice because it ignores the fact that it is has been proven to be a genetic trait and nothing to do with social behaviour.

Oh, has it, now? Explain the logic underlieng that conclusion, please. Do you have a link to that study?

Straight people raise gay children just as gay children raise straight children.

Of course! I never stated the case otherwise. My parents were straight.

Saying it's a learned behaviour feeds into the idiotic reasoning that Christian's give for Gays not to have civil rights and to not be able to adopt.

You will hopefully learn not to lump me in with the idiotic Xians. True Christians are, like Jesus, no part of the world rather than the phony moral police to the world. I would take no political position on anything, not even homosexuality and abortion. As far as I am concerned you should be able to adopt and have civil rights. Though I wouldn't take part in a holy union between same sex I wouldn't interfere nor politicize their rights for a union of some kind. Legal for example.

I take huge offense to your understanding of homosexuality because it's wrong. It's not opinion. Homosexuality is genetic as your hair colour. You don't learn to have brown hair.

I don't really give a shit that you take offense at that and I don't agree with it being genetic but I'm not going to get all bent out of shape about it.

As for slavery, The Bible not only supports slavery, it tells you how to drive a spike through their ear to mark them. That's not humane. Also Jesus advocates slavery as well, so don't try and say the NT fixes that.

[sigh] ... never get tired of this ignorant argument. The piercing of the ear of which you speak was a willful choice made by the slave who had made up their mind to stay with the slave holder after the period of time was up that the slave holder could hold the slave. The Law of Moses demanded that a slave be set free with pay after a certain period of time. The capture of another human being as a slave was punishable by death with the exception of prisoners of war. If one had debt one couldn't pay off or had been arrested for stealing property they could be made into slaves. There were laws regarding slavery to protect the slaves from harsh treatment.

Joseph was a slave, you know - and the richest man, second in power only to Pharaoh.

My advice to you? Educate yourself and get rid of the emotional attachment you have to your religious upbringing.

When the US fought the civil war slave owners used the bible as defense for their right to own slaves but it was the secular morality that brought slavery to an end in this country.

Yes, and the church used the Bible to say the Earth was the center of the universe even though the Bible never said such a thing. Atheist use the Bible to say that the Bible itself said the Earth is flat when the Bible actually said it was spherical long before science said it. Charles Manson used the Bible to convince his followers that the Beatles were foretold in Revelation as the sign of the beginning of the racial war he tried to start.

Do you know what prevents the abuse of the Bible. Education of what it really says. There are only two ways to interpret the Bible. Right and wrong.

---

I haven't seen the film but I've heard of the name. Whats it about? I think I've heard its pro-religion, is it?
So is it like the opposite to the critically acclaimed film 'The God Who Wasn't There' or something? I'll check wikipedia sometime for a bit of info and check the website. But what do YOU think expelled is about?

I haven't seen it yet but both I've heard about it from atheist shows. It essentially attempts to promote creationism as a valid scientific theory but what it actually does is say evolution leads to atheism, which leads to Nazism, which leads to the holocaust.

I've actually recently downloaded the film to see how bad it is but have not had time to watch it. I wouldn't pay money for it.

Watch it for a more accurate criticism. They do go off into directions like patriotism and Nazism that are as dumb as some of the movie and animation clips, but it really doesn't promote creationism as much as it does point out the xenophobic attitude of 'science.'

---

Please do watch it, I thought it was so bad it almost became funny again. There is a very nice 3D animation in there though.

That was a real nice animation ... among so many bad ones. I can't wait until Religulous (Spelling?) comes out on DVD. Have you seen the theatre release?

---

... Like George Carlin said and I paraphrase 'some people you'll be talking to them and after about a minute you'll think "this guy is f*cking STUPID!", and then there's these other people who after about a minute you'll think "Well he's fairly intelligent...
Ah, he's full of shit!!"[.....]'

Carlin was accurate in his usual observations of human nature until it came to God and the Bible and then he himself was full of shit. Catholic that didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground would be my guess. Couldn't even define what the simple word god meant according to the Bible.

Religion is bullshit, but the Bible ... now that is entirely different.

[leo-rcc]

Religulous is not out yet in the Netherlands, and won't be for a while either.

One question does pop to mind. Are you a creationist in the "The earth is 6000 years old and everything was built in 6 days" sense, or do you think the creator was a instigator of the universe and life and let evolution do the diversity thing in the billions of years timeframe? If neither I be interested in that as well.

[Daystar]

Religulous is not out yet in the Netherlands, and won't be for a while either.

One question does pop to mind. Are you a creationist in the "The earth is 6000 years old and everything was built in 6 days" sense, or do you think the creator was a instigator of the universe and life and let evolution do the diversity thing in the billions of years timeframe? If neither I be interested in that as well.

The 6 days are not literal 6 24 hour periods. The word 'day' is translated from the Hebrew word yohm which actually means any period of time given in the telling of an event. This is no different from modern day terminology. If you read the brief account of creation you will notice that the term day is used in three different ways. 1.) as the daylight hours, the same as we use it. 2.) as the day and night hours the same as we use it, and 3.) as the total 6 'days' or periods of time being one day or period of time.

Notice the seventh day, the day of rest, though. It lasted thousands of years. David and much later Paul mentioned it as still going on in their day thousands of years after it began. Psalm 95:8-11 / Hebrews 4:9-11

Not to mention the Bible doesn't state what period of time elapsed between the period of time before the first 'day' began. It starts out saying that the Earth was waste - as well as how much time elapsed between that first day and the sixth.

Bottom line - from the perspective of the Bible student there is no reason to disagree with science on the speculated age of the universe including planet Earth.

A Religious Encyclopædia by Schaff says: "The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours."

Delitzsch in his New Commentary on Genesis says: "Days of God are intended, with Him a thousand years are but as a day when that is past, Ps. 90:4 . . . The days of creation are, according to the meaning of Holy Scripture itself, not days of four and twenty hours, but aeons . . . For this earthly and human measurement of time cannot apply to the first three days."

[leo-rcc]

Good morning,

Okay, I pretty much assumed the "thousands of years in a day" translation would come up, but I wanted to be sure. I guess it is the luxury of a deity to decide how long a day is. I am still not quite happy with that, if a day isn't a day long, why call it a day in the book? Surely an omnipotent and omni sentient entity as god must have foreseen the confusion it would bring?

Speaking of which: I am sure you have read many arguments against the Genesis story about first creating light, day and night, and days later making the stars and the sun. How do you account for those?

I am not great in bible scriptures I must say, I defer to those that are better at interpreting those. I have read it, and your lord knows I've had plenty of scripture flung at me through emails and PM's (not here btw) like monkeys flinging poo in the zoo, which i find rather distasteful. So I am glad someone reasonable is willing to discuss these things without preaching.

I find religion interesting, but to me I see no added value to Christianity over any other religion. Since you have read and learned on all these different religions, why did you choose this rather unique one over the others?

[ManofGOD]

"Learned behavior?" Ask any homosexual or bisexual whose mind is not clouded with the bible. It is not a learned behaviour, it is who you are. Intrinsic. Saying it is a learned behaviour once again implies that choice that Christian's insist we have, and you seem to recognize that fact but at the same time don't. The fact that you would try to suppress an aspect of yourself because a book told you too, well I find it outrageous.

If you follow the Bible as a guide then do you have slaves? Because the Bible not only encourages slaves but gives you all the guidelines you need to have slaves.

Being a learned behavior doesn't imply that one has a choice. The traditional and cultural aspects of early development are similar - vague and subtle influences we may not be aware of forming who we are. The issue of choice regarding homosexuality isn't really relevant, though. Whether or not I chose homosexuality as a sexual preference (choice in ones sexuality is an idiotic notion anyway - nobody chooses their sexuality) is no more of your business than yours is mine, now is it.

Why should you judge me and my beliefs and choices I have made regarding sexuality whatever they may be? I don't yours.

I don't suppress my sexuality, that would be impossible and deceptive. I can however, control my actions.

Slavery is an issue we can discuss in full detail later, if you like, but suffice it to say that the Bible was much more humane about slavery than the current political entities by far. Most atheists are political much the same as the faithful are religious. I don't want slaves, but acknowledge that in the past every culture that I can think of did at one time.

---

I agree with Eilonnwy. You are simply in denial about your homosexuality and think that by claiming you "don't practice" you are somehow protected because a silly old book says you are in the wrong.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion even though it is wrong. The Law of Moses was the laws of an ancient nation that - after Jesus - no longer applies to anyone. Homosexuality was one of the few portions of that law that were continued to the Christian. They apply only to Christians. You can't be a practicing homosexual and Christian. You have to choose between the two. Who are you to question this?

Might I inquire why the title of the thread is "Expelled"? Are you going to talk about the movie or something?

I just saw the movie and it inspired me to come here after having earlier abandoned the idea of this type of discussion.

We can talk about the movie - as you American persons call it - if you like, but typically I find the Creation / Evolution as well as Trinitarian discussion to be a total waste of time.

The Laws of Moses should be used as a guideline on how one should live.